On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:01:09AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Thanks for clarifying. Of course one reason for mass rebuild can be that we > are not able to properly identify the package set for more targeted mini > mass rebuild. > > But IMHO, having just the Copr build to identify the problematic packages is > good enough. If we want more, e.g. if new GCC brings some performance > optimizations, rebuilding just the 5001 specifically for this occasion and > the rest done later by mass rebuild e.g. after branching, that would be > still fine. If we want the rebuild due to e.g. glibc changes, we sill can > come up with more targeted package set. Right, so you are advocating for mass rebuilds to always be targeted to only the needed subset? I guess I think thats pretty nice, but I also think it could mean a lot of work for releng if they have to identify those packages. Perhaps we could move to requiring change owners to identify all packages they want to have rebuilt? Of course we also have had cases were we did want to actually rebuild everything (rpm payload changes, etc). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
